Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleClinical Investigation

Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-FAPI Versus 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Various Malignancies

Nader Hirmas, Rainer Hamacher, Miriam Sraieb, Lukas Kessler, Kim M. Pabst, Francesco Barbato, Helena Lanzafame, Stefan Kasper, Michael Nader, Claudia Kesch, Bastian von Tresckow, Hubertus Hautzel, Clemens Aigner, Martin Glas, Martin Stuschke, Sherko Kümmel, Philipp Harter, Celine Lugnier, Waldemar Uhl, Boris Hadaschik, Viktor Grünwald, Jens T. Siveke, Ken Herrmann and Wolfgang P. Fendler
Journal of Nuclear Medicine March 2024, 65 (3) 372-378; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.123.266652
Nader Hirmas
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rainer Hamacher
2Department of Medical Oncology, West German Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miriam Sraieb
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lukas Kessler
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kim M. Pabst
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Francesco Barbato
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helena Lanzafame
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stefan Kasper
2Department of Medical Oncology, West German Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Nader
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claudia Kesch
3Department of Urology, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bastian von Tresckow
4Department of Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, West German Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hubertus Hautzel
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Clemens Aigner
5Department of Thoracic Surgery and Thoracic Endoscopy, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Glas
6Division of Clinical Neurooncology, Department of Neurology, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Stuschke
7Department of Radiation Therapy, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sherko Kümmel
8Breast Unit, Kliniken Essen–Mitte, Essen, Germany;
9Department of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philipp Harter
10Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Evangelische Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Celine Lugnier
11Department of Hematology and Oncology with Palliative Care, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Waldemar Uhl
12Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Boris Hadaschik
3Department of Urology, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Viktor Grünwald
3Department of Urology, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jens T. Siveke
13Bridge Institute of Experimental Tumor Therapy, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; and
14Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK partner site Essen), German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ken Herrmann
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wolfgang P. Fendler
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg–Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1.

    Patient Characteristics (n = 115)

    VariableData
    Sex
     Male71 (62%)
     Female44 (38%)
    Median age at 68Ga-FAPI scan (y)63 (17)
    Tumor entities
     Prostate22 (19%)
     Head and neck18 (16%)
     Breast16 (14%)
     Colorectal15 (13%)
     Bladder12 (10%)
     Myeloma12 (10%)
     Kidney10 (9%)
     Lymphoma10 (9%)
    Regional detection with 68Ga-FAPI scan*
     No evidence of disease15 (13%)
     Primary or local disease detected42 (37%)
     Lymph node metastases detected28 (24%)
     Visceral metastases detected38 (33%)
     Bone metastases detected24 (21%)
    Scanning purposes
     Staging at initial diagnosis34 (30%)
     Restaging after therapy81 (70%)
    Prior therapy received*
     None35 (30%)
     Surgery65 (57%)
     Chemotherapy53 (46%)
     Radiation therapy31 (27%)
     Immune therapy20 (17%)
     Hormone therapy16 (14%)
     Radionuclide therapy3 (3%)
    Median uptake time (min)
     68Ga-FAPI15 (25)
     18F-FDG65 (21)
    Median time between 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG (d)0 (2)
    • ↵* Different combinations are possible; hence, values do not add to 100%.

    • Qualitative data are number and percentage; continuous data are median and interquartile range.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2.

    Comparison of Diagnostic Efficacy Between 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET (Per-Patient and Per-Region Analysis) for Tumors in Which 68Ga-FAPI Outperformed 18F-FDG PET

    Tumor entitynStratificationPET-positive/ totalSensitivitySpecificityPPVNPVAccuracy
    68Ga-FAPI PET
     Colorectal14Per-patient11/1490.9 (58.7–99.8)66.7 (9.4–99.2)90.9 (66.6–98)66.7 (20.8–93.9)85.7 (57.2–98.2)
     Per-region17/4594.1 (71.3–99.9)96.4 (81.7–99.9)94.1 (69.9–99.1)96.4 (80.1–99.5)95.6 (84.9–99.5)
     Prostate22Per-patient22/22100 (84.6–100)—100—100
     Per-region33/5594.3 (80.8–99.3)100 (83.2–100)10090.9 (72.3–97.5)96.4 (87.5–99.6)
    18F-FDG PET
     Colorectal14Per-patient10/1481.8 (48.2–97.7)66.7 (9.43–99.2)90 (63.9–97.9)50 (18.4–81.6)78.6 (49.2–95.3)
     Per-region17/4588.2 (63.6–98.5)92.9 (76.5–99.1)88.2 (66.1–96.7)92.9 (77.9–98)91.1 (78.8–97.5)
     Prostate22Per-patient20/2290.9 (70.84–98.9)—100—90.9
     Per-region31/5588.6 (73.3–96.8)100 (83.2–100)10083.3 (66.53–92.63)92.7 (82.41–97.98)
    • Data in parentheses are 95% CI.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3.

    Comparison of Diagnostic Efficacy Between 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET (Per-Patient and Per-Region Analysis) for Tumors in Which 68Ga-FAPI Was Comparable to 18F-FDG PET

    Tumor entitynStratificationPET-positive/totalSensitivitySpecificityPPVNPVAccuracy
    68Ga-FAPI PET
     Breast16Per-patient15/16100 (78.2–100)100 (2.5–100)100100100 (79.4–100)
     Per-region28/4796.6 (82.2–100)100 (81.5–100)10094.7 (72.4–99.2)97.9 (88.7–100)
     Head and neck10Per-patient10/10100 (66.4–100)0 (0–97.5)90 (90)—90.0 (55.5–99.8)
     Per-region17/3193.8 (69.8–99.8)86.7 (59.5–98.3)88.2 (67.2–96.5)92.9 (65.9–98.9)90.3 (74.3–98)
    18F-FDG PET
     Breast16Per-patient15/16100 (78.2–100)100 (2.5–100)100100100 (79.4–100)
     Per-region28/47100 (88.1–100)100 (81.5–100)100100100 (92.5–100)
     Head and neck10Per-patient10/10100 (66.4–100)—90 (90)—90.0 (55.5–99.8)
     Per-region18/31100 (79.4–100)86.7 (59.5–98.3)88.9 (68.8–96.7)10093.6 (78.6–99.2)
    • Data in parentheses are 95% CI.

    • View popup
    TABLE 4.

    Comparison of Diagnostic Efficacy Between 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET (Per-Patient and Per-Region Analysis) for Tumors in Which 68Ga-FAPI Underperformed in Comparison to 18F-FDG PET

    Tumor entitynStratificationPET-positive/totalSensitivitySpecificityPPVNPVAccuracy
    68Ga-FAPI PET
     Bladder12Per-patient8/1272.7 (39–94)100 (2.5–100)10025 (11.3–46.7)75 (42.8–94.5)
     Per-region12/3778.6 (49.2–95.3)95.7 (78.1–99.9)91.7 (61.34–98.7)88 (72.8–95.3)89.2 (74.6–97)
     Kidney10Per-patient8/1087.5 (47.4–99.7)50 (1.26–98.7)87.5 (63.1–96.6)50 (9.13–90.9)80 (44.4–97.5)
     Per-region15/3192.9 (66.1–99.8)88.2 (63.6–98.5)86.7 (63.7–96)93.8 (69.2–99)90.3 (74.3–98)
     Lymphoma9Per-patient7/987.5 (47.4–99.7)100 (2.5–100)10050 (13.8–86.2)88.9 (51.8–99.7)
     Per-region11/3078.6 (49.2–95.3)100 (79.4–100)10084.2 (66.2–93.6)90 (73.5–97.9)
     Myeloma10Per-patient6/1075 (34.9–96.8)100 (15.8–100)10050 (23.1–76.9)80 (44.4–97.5)
     Per-region6/1075 (34.9–96.8)100 (15.8–100)10050 (23.1–76.9)80 (44.4–97.5)
    18F-FDG PET
     Bladder12Per-patient11/12100 (71.5–100)100 (2.5–100)100100100 (73.5–100)
     Per-region13/3692.3 (64–99.8)95.7 (78.1–99.9)92.31 (63.7–98.8)95.7 (77–99.3)94.4 (81.3–99.3)
     Kidney10Per-patient7/1087.5 (47.4–99.7)100 (15.8–100)10066.7 (24.2–92.6)90 (55.5–99.8)
     Per-region14/3192.9 (66.1–99.8)94.1 (71.3–99.9)92.9 (65.9–98.9)94.12 (70.7–99.1)93.55 (78.6–99.2)
     Lymphoma9Per-patient8/9100 (63.1–100)100 (2.5–100)100100100 (66.4–100)
     Per-region15/30100 (76.8–100)93.8 (69.8–99.8)93.33 (67.7–98.9)10096.7 (82.8–99.9)
     Myeloma10Per-patient7/1087.5 (47.4–99.7)100 (15.8–100)10066.7 (24.2–92.6)90 (55.5–99.8)
     Per-region7/1087.5 (47.4–99.7)100 (15.8–100)10066.7 (24.2–92.6)90 (55.5–99.8)
    • Data in parentheses are 95% CI.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 65 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 65, Issue 3
March 1, 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-FAPI Versus 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Various Malignancies
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-FAPI Versus 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Various Malignancies
Nader Hirmas, Rainer Hamacher, Miriam Sraieb, Lukas Kessler, Kim M. Pabst, Francesco Barbato, Helena Lanzafame, Stefan Kasper, Michael Nader, Claudia Kesch, Bastian von Tresckow, Hubertus Hautzel, Clemens Aigner, Martin Glas, Martin Stuschke, Sherko Kümmel, Philipp Harter, Celine Lugnier, Waldemar Uhl, Boris Hadaschik, Viktor Grünwald, Jens T. Siveke, Ken Herrmann, Wolfgang P. Fendler
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2024, 65 (3) 372-378; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.123.266652

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-FAPI Versus 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Various Malignancies
Nader Hirmas, Rainer Hamacher, Miriam Sraieb, Lukas Kessler, Kim M. Pabst, Francesco Barbato, Helena Lanzafame, Stefan Kasper, Michael Nader, Claudia Kesch, Bastian von Tresckow, Hubertus Hautzel, Clemens Aigner, Martin Glas, Martin Stuschke, Sherko Kümmel, Philipp Harter, Celine Lugnier, Waldemar Uhl, Boris Hadaschik, Viktor Grünwald, Jens T. Siveke, Ken Herrmann, Wolfgang P. Fendler
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2024, 65 (3) 372-378; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.123.266652
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Development of FAP-targeted theranostics discovered by next-generation sequencing-augmented mining of a novel immunized VNAR library
  • 1,090 Publications and 5 Years Later: Is FAP-Targeted Theranostics Really Happening?
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • [18F]FDG PET/CT Predicts Patient Survival in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis–Associated Interstitial Lung Disease
  • Whole-Body [18F]DPA-714 Kinetic Assessment Using PET/CT Scanner with Long Axial Field of View
  • Clinical Outcomes of 177Lu-DOTATATE Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy in Patients with Skeletal Metastases from Neuroendocrine Tumors: Insights from Real-World Experience
Show more Clinical Investigation

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • FAPI
  • FDG
  • PET
  • oncology
  • theranostic
  • accuracy
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire